Proceedings of the 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90308
PRESSURE TEST PLANNING TO PREVENT INTERNAL CORROSION BY RESIDUAL FLUIDS
Trevor Place Enbridge Pipeline Inc. Edmonton, AB, Canada Colin Cathrea Champion Technologies Inc. Sherwood Park, AB, Canada Greg Sasaki Enbridge Pipeline Inc. Edmonton, AB, Canada Michael Holm GE Water and Infrastructure Sherwood Park, AB Canada

ABSTRACT Strength and leak testing (AKA hydrotesting, and pressure testing) of pipeline projects remains a primary method of providing quality assurance on new pipeline construction, and for validating structural integrity of the asbuilt pipeline [1][2][3]. A myriad of regulations surround these activities to ensure soundness of the pipeline, security of the environment during and after the pressure testing operation, as well as personnel safety during these activities. CAN/CSA Z662-11 now includes important clauses to ensure that the pipeline designer/builder/operator consider the potential corrosive impacts of the pressure test media [4]. This paper briefly discusses some of the standard approaches used in the pipeline industry to address internal corrosion caused by pressure test mediums which often vary according to the scope of the pipeline project (small versus large diameter, short versus very long pipelines) as well as the rationale behind these different approaches. Case studies are presented to highlight the importance of considering pressure test medium corrosiveness. A practical strategy addressing the needs of long-distance transmission pipeline operators, involving a post-hydrotest inhibitor rinse, is presented. INTRODUCTION Pipeline strength and leak testing is a commonly exercised method to validate a pipelines fitness for purpose, either as part of pre-commissioning processes or as part of a revalidation exercise in anticipation of changing service for older pipelines. Strength and leak testing demonstrates, in a concrete and reassuring manner, that the pipeline does not contain any areas of weakness sufficient to lead to failure under similar loading

conditions at the time of the test [5]. These tests are normally executed as a two stage operation: (1) a high pressure strength test, typically at 125% of MAOP for 4 hours, intended to reveal structural deficiencies that could eventually lead to pipeline rupture, and (2) a leak test, typically 110% MAOP for 4 hours, intended to reveal low volume leaks that would result in product release upon pipeline commissioning. Although local regulations can vary with regard to the requirements of the pressure testing medium and a variety of test media may be allowed, there are clear advantages to using an incompressible fluid over a gaseous test medium. These include faster and more reliable leak test results, and substantially lower energy release in the event of a failure during the high pressure strength test. Liquid hydrocarbons were sometimes employed as a pressure test medium in the 1940s and 1950s, but the growing sensitivity to hydrocarbon release has precluded their use for strength testing since the 1960s. Water has historically been the test medium of choice to pipeline builders due to its low cost and widespread availability. Waters dominance as a primary test medium has lead to the eponymously used terms hydrotesting and hydrostatic testing to describe strength or leak tests in general. CORROSIVENESS OF HYDROTEST FLUIDS The ubiquity of water as a test medium brings a subtle irony to the increasingly stringent regulations that have been developed to ensure excellence in new pipeline projects; that is, water is inherently corrosive and nearly always contains microorganisms that can affect internal corrosion processes [6][7][8][9]. The technical threat of hydrotest water corrosiveness is partially offset by decades of pipeline construction experience that demonstrated negligible practical

Copyright 2012 by ASME

pre-operational corrosion experience [10], which may lead some to consider the truism if it aint broke, dont fix it. This may still be true in certain pipeline projects where the time between the final tie-in welding and operation is measured in weeks (which was often the case in historical construction projects), but is folly for most contemporary pipeline projects. Pipeline construction practices are increasingly affected by scheduling considerations driven by commercial factors, environmental issues, and land-owner access issues. Environmentally sensitive areas, such as river crossings, are often constructed and hydrotested months before being tied in to adjacent sections. It is now relatively common for portions of a long distance pipelines to be built and pressure tested more than a year in advance of pipeline commissioning. Pre-commissioning exposure to corrosive fluids during hydrotesting must be an essential consideration, as a number of recently documented hydrotest related corrosion failures have demonstrated: A North Slope pipeline was hydrotested with lake water, dewatered, dried, and left several months before commissioning. There was an immediate leak in the 6 Oclock position. When the leaking section was examined it was found that some water had remained in the pipe at a low point, which allowed a microbial community to propagate and cause MIC [11]. One 18 (0.457m) pipe in Nigeria was hydrotested with untreated creek water, which remained in the pipe for several months after completion of hydrotesting. The pipe was then dried and put into service. 3 years after startup the 0.312 (7.92mm) wall-thickness pipe suffered a leak. Investigation of the failure revealed internal pitting in the 6 oclock position, with the pits having a terraced appearance indicative of microbially induced corrosion (MIC) by sulfatereducing bacteria (SRB). It is believed that the corrosion was initiated during exposure to the hydrotest water [11]. A 6 (0.152m) AISI Type 304L stainless steel cooling water pipe was hydrotested using a potable municipal water source. Due to construction scheduling errors, the water was not drained before the pipe was put into lay-up for a period of nine months. Numerous leaks were detected during a re-test prior to commissioning. A root cause failure analysis found MIC as the cause of pitting corrosion [12]. Several other equipment failures related to poor hydrotesting practices can be found in additional works by Korbrin [23], who provides four case studies, Stott [24], and Powell et al [25]. Recent Enbridge experience has highlighted the importance of considering the possibility of corrosion being caused by hydrotest water: A 540km, 0.762m X70 pipeline was constructed in 1999. A scheduled in-line inspection in 2008 revealed a total of 15,715 shallow (non-critical) internal corrosion features on the line; 94% of these features were on the bottom of the pipe within a 5km section of the line (0.9% of the total line length) in a location where hydrotest water was believed

parked for several months. This line had a single injection and delivery points, and uniformly consistent operation throughout its history that included frequent batch pigging. This corrosion was determined to have occurred prior to commissioning as a result of incomplete hydrotest fluid dewatering. HYDROTEST REGULATIONS There are many sources of regulation and code that affect hydrotesting directly. Pipeline design and hydrotest standards include ASME B31.4 [1] and ASME B31.8 [2] for liquid and gas pipelines, respectively, in the USA. CAN/CSA Z662 [3] is the corresponding Canadian regulation for pipeline design and hydrotest. Water sourcing and discharge requirements are subject to both national and state/province level jurisdiction and are too numerous to mention here. The selection of chemical additives (i.e. status as registered biocide or pollutant) may also affect the regulatory body having authority over the test, and the requirements imposed on the hydrotest. COMMON PRACTICES There is no shortage of recommendations surrounding pressure test water sourcing. Stein [13] and Lutey [14] are referenced by Little on the importance of special attention to the selection of hydrotest waters and procedures to prevent MIC [15], and preferred hydrotest water sources are provided for chemical process industries [16]: First Choice Use demineralized water, drain, and dry as soon as possible after hydrotesting. Second Choice Use high-purity steam condensate with early draining and drying. Third Choice Use natural freshwater, drain immediately, flush with demineralized water or steam condensate, blow or mop dry within 3-5 days. Darwin et al provide a more comprehensive General Ranking of Water Sources for Use in Hydrostatic Testing for pipeline application [17]: Demineralized water Most Desirable High purity condensate Potable water Clean sea water River water Lake water Brackish water Least Desirable These recommendations consistently demonstrate that waters with lower dissolved solids, lower organic and inorganic constituents, and less bacteria are preferred. It is important to also consider that the pressure testing practices used in small and large volume pipeline are not necessarily the same. These differences are not a consequence of disagreement on ideal conditions but are instead the result of the practical and economic conditions imposed by

Copyright 2012 by ASME

hydrotest projects of vastly different volumes: a 5km 0.15m diameter pipe has a total volume of 90m3, while a 50km 0.762m diameter segment [18] of a transmission pipe has a volume of nearly 23,000m3. The former situation presents a small enough volume to permit the most stringent water sourcing, aggressive chemical treatment (using inhibitors, oxygen scavengers, and/or biocides), and trucking for disposal to any number of industrial waste water processors. Winter hydrotest fluids are often rented mixtures of methanol and water that is reused many times. The sheer volume of the latter situation presents considerable challenges in simply managing water source and discharge logistics [19] well before corrosion issues are considered. The additional constraints imposed by chemical treatment of the test medium which can include field and laboratory testing (time delays), neutralization, and temporary storage in treatment tanks prior to discharge [20] are substantial. Wastewater disposal costs of $2-$530 per cubic meter [21] are uneconomical for large transmission pipeline projects. The ultimate use of the pipeline may also affect the selection and management of the hydrotest medium. Production pipelines intended to carry acid gases have very stringent requirements to thoroughly desiccate or otherwise protect the pipeline prior to putting in service (for corrosion reasons), and high pressure natural gas pipelines require effective drying to reduce gas hydrate formation (that can lead to equipment damage, loss of operability, and safety concerns during pigging operations). Effective drying (total exclusion of water) is an effective method of preventing internal corrosion. However, drying may not kill bacteria which can be revitalized after water is reintroduced into the pipeline. Finally, one transmission gas pipeline operator has successfully executed an alternative integrity verification process (instead of hydrotesting) to the satisfaction of the National Energy Board [22] this was not performed for internal corrosion prevention purposes, but certainly benefitted the pipeline in this regard. POST HYDROTEST TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT In response to the trend to longer duration pipeline construction projects, greater use of pipeline prebuilds (short sections of pipe built in advance of the main spread), and longer time periods between hydrotest dewatering and pipeline in-service date, Enbridge began investigating the possibility of a post-hydrotest pipeline inhibition treatment in 2006. The concept is relatively simple: (i) given the expectation that pipeline dewatering and drying leaves a humid pipe with some isolated accumulations of stagnant water, and given that the natural waters used contain bacteria and that this is an unfavorable condition; then (ii) running a batch of highly treated water/inhibitor/biocide through the pipeline after the hydrotest will ensure that any residual fluid has decreased corrosivity and is biologically inert.

CASE 1: The first pipeline treated using this method was built in 2007-2008 and consists of 378km of 0.762m diameter pipe with a majority wall thickness of 9.8mm. The posthydrotest treatment consisted of applying a glycol based inhibitor containing a blend of two quarternary amines (nonoxidizing inhibitors) with demonstrated efficacy in reducing bacterial populations. Hydrotest segments were 30-60km in length. Due to the late addition of this work scope to the hydrotest program, these treatments were performed after the hydrotest program by a separate contractor at substantially increased cost. In this trial application, there were few constraints placed on the inhibitor application process; only a single nitrogen driven trailing pig was used to push the inhibitor down the line (as opposed to containing the inhibitor between pigs), and there was no velocity limit imposed. Considerable foaming of the inhibitor/residual water blend was experienced in the receiving tank. The pipeline was filled in fall of 2008, which was 6-16 months after hydrotest/treatment, and placed into service. A high resolution MFL in-line inspection was completed in Summer 2010, and revealed only eleven (11) internal corrosion features of 1% nominal wall thickness all of which were on the bottom of the pipe and on a single pipe joint. Lessons learned on this project included: 1) the treatment was practical and effective in preventing corrosion, 2) it is important to consider post-hydrotest treatment at the pipeline design stage in order to minimize costs, and 3) a defoaming agent may be required, either blended in with the inhibitor or added to the pipe discharge tank based on the inhibitor formulation used. NB: In Case 1, foaming was not initially considered. As a result of the inhibitor being discharged at high pressure and high velocity into tankage considerable foaming occurred. Reduction of pressure and increase in discharge openings can greatly reduce foaming. CASE 2: A pipeline construction project consisting of 1590km of 0.914mm diameter pipe with a majority wall thickness of 9.1mm was built in 2008. The post-hydrotest treatment consisted of a glycol based inhibitor containing a blend of quarternary amines (non-oxidizing inhibitors) with demonstrated efficacy in reducing bacterial populations. Hydrotest segment were of typical length, but the project team requested that the post-hydrotest treatment be conducted using air drive on a trap-to-trap basis (>250 km) as a cost reducing opportunity. This exception was allowed. These treatments required commensurately larger volumes of inhibitor/water blend at the initiating trap location than was experienced in the CASE 1 application. These volumes lead to high hydrostatic back pressure and low pig speeds as the inhibitor train ascended inclines, followed by very high inhibitor and pig velocities when the inhibitor train crested hills. Substantial inhibited water volumes were left in the line as a result of these speed excursions, which lead to off-spec oil batches when the line was placed in operation in October of 2010. Subsequent treatment sections used multiple injection points to overcome

Copyright 2012 by ASME

the speed excursions. Approximately 20% of this line was inspected using a high resolution MFL tool in the fall of 2011. This inspection revealed no internal corrosion metal loss. Lessons learned on this project included: 1) the treatment was practical and effective; 2) longer treatment sections should be avoided to reduce velocity issues on hilly sections, 3) air drive is an economical alternative to nitrogen (unless it is desired to leave the line nitrogen packed to allow a longer term wet storage). CASE 3: A pipeline project consisting of 1084km of 0.508m diameter pipe with majority wall thickness of 6.35mm wall thickness built 2007-2010, and placed in service in summer 2010. Two post-hydrotest treatments were used depending on the construction spread. The CASE 1 method was used for the majority of the build as well as on pre-built segments (river crossings, etc), while some of the last built segments were treated with a hydrocarbon based filming inhibitor/biocide blend during line fill. No problems were reported for the glycol based inhibitor rinse on the prebuilt and regular post hydrotest treatments using the CASE 1 method. However, both the hydrocarbon based inhibitor and the pipeline products themselves contained substantial concentrations of aromatic solvents that were not considered in the selection of the purge pigs used for line fill. As a consequence, the pig seals experienced solvent softening, extreme wear, and eventually failed to effectively separate the line fill from the nitrogen pack ahead of the line fill pigs. No ILI is yet available on this line. Lessons learned on this project include: 1) compatibility of the materials used in the pigs used to execute these treatments, and the fluids to which they are exposed, should be established at an early stage. CASE 4: An existing pipeline was augmented by an additional 107 km in Northern Alberta. The pipeline included a 7km pre-build that was co-constructed with another pipeline in 2010. The CASE 1 glycol based inhibitor treatment was used on the pre-build immediately upon completion of hydrotesting. The remaining 103km of line was completed in 2012 and the entire section (including the pre-build) will be re-tested. Concerns over contamination of the bulk hydrotest water by the residual inhibitor required that clean water rinse be used to flush the residual inhibitor from the pre-build. A first rinse consisting of 15m3 of clean water in an air driven pig train was used to wash the pipe. EPA 8015D was used to assess glycol in water by GC/FID as a surrogate to the total residual inhibitor. This test indicated a concentration of 230ppm residual inhibitor in the rinse water. A second 15m3 rinse was performed, producing a residual inhibitor content of 60ppm, which still exceeded the surface water discharge limit of 30ppm set by provincial regulators. A third rinse of 38m3 clean water produced a concentration of residual inhibitor below 10ppm. In anticipation of further dilution through the final hydrotest water volume of 15,000m3, the anticipated concentration of residual inhibitor will be in the range of a 0.05ppm. Lessons

learned include: 1) multiple rinsing is effective at reducing the residual inhibitor to safe levels, 2) alternative chemistries/anticorrosion treatments should be considered if rinsing is undesirable, 3) further work is required to establish smarter rinse philosophies (i.e. consider the volume of retest fluids and expected concentration of residual inhibitor in these large volumes to establish a more practical residual rinse water inhibitor concentration). ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: There was initially some resistance to these new and unusual inhibitor treatments the majority of these concerns were borne of unfamiliarity, as well as the pragmatic issues of including new work items in projects that were scoped and budgeted years earlier. Initially, the companys pipeline integrity department allowed staged consideration of these treatments based on the historical understanding that short term exposure to residual hydrotest water was reasonably benign. This staged consideration provided the following guidelines: 1) no treatment would be required if line fill and operation (in-service) would occur within 3 months of hydrotest, 2) expert consideration of schedule by project manager if the interval between hydrotest and in-service was greater than 3 months but less than 6 months of hydrotest, and 3) treatment mandatory if the interval between hydrotest and in-service date was longer than 6 months. This staged philosophy inevitably lead to the construction managers building schedules with stated (but very optimistic) intervals of just under 6 months. This sometimes led to higher treatment costs being incurred because of new test crew mobilization. The knowledge that the chemically treated test segments would later be cut and welded necessitated an analysis of the potential flammability of the atmosphere left in the pipe. These analyses demonstrated that, for the glycol based inhibitor, the in-pipe atmosphere could not be ignited. RECOMMENDEDATIONS Enbridge has now incorporated a specified requirement to perform anti corrosion treatments following all hydrotests in our design standards regardless of the interval between testing and in-service date. These new requirements allow the following options: 1) a post-hydrotest inhibitor rinse using company approved inhibitors, 2) enhanced drying and nitrogen blanket of pretested section, and 3) chemical treatment of hydrotest water (required if water is going to be parked in a pipeline for more than 30 days). Options 2 and 3 are adequately discussed elsewhere [25]. The post-hydrotest inhibitor rinse is discussed in more detail, as follows: Company experiences presented in the preceding case studies, and others not mentioned, stress several additional learnings: 1) post-hydrotest inhibitor rinse is a practical alternative to water treatment using oxygen scavengers, biocides and corrosion inhibitors (provided the hydrotest duration is short), 2) keep the treatment sections of a practical length (40-60 km maximum, typical hydrotest segment length -

Copyright 2012 by ASME

do not attempt to treat pipeline trap-trap sections), 3) contain the inhibitor between two pigs for optimum coverage, 4) the inhibitor rinse may be reused provided the inhibitor is topped up to maintain desired concentration and volumes in between uses, 5) speed control is important to prevent bypass of inhibitor around the pigs, 6) packing the line with air ahead of the pig train will assist in speed control, 7) a de-foamer compatible with the inhibitor should be added to the landing tank as required (and/or reducing the pressure and velocity of the discharge into the tank), 8) if the line is a pre-build and will be tested a second time as part of a larger hydrotest segment, it is necessary to consider the contamination of the bulk hydrotest water volume with the residual inhibitor from the pretest as well as the specific environmental requirements for discharging those waters based on the inhibitor used and local regulations, 9) the flammability of the atmosphere inside the treated pipe segment must be evaluated and considered. Cost benefits will be achieved by imposing this work scope on the hydrotest dewatering crews. This crew already has much of the equipment and manpower required to execute the inhibitor rinse, including: people, air compressors, test heads capable of launching and receiving pigs, and vac trucks to capture and transport inhibitor contaminated water. GENERALIZED PROCEDURE: Fill the test segment with filtered water (to remove silt and solids that can bear high levels of bacteria) Hydrotest, dewater, and swab the pipeline as soon as practicable Obtain the correct volume of inhibitor/water blend Assemble necessary equipment/services (see schematic in Annex A), ensure chemical compatibility of all components including sealing elements of pigs Ensure pressure hoses are tied down and landing tank is properly vented Inject inhibitor between two pigs, and air drive the batch to the receiving trap while maintaining speed less than 3m/s (the use of pigs with a minimum of 4 sealing elements per pig is recommended) Swab the line again to reduce residual liquid (to prevent offspec crude shipments) Dispose of residual inhibitor as required by local environmental requirements Demobilize manpower and equipment Document all works, especially in the case of pre-built pipe sections. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge their companies for supporting this work, as well as all the hard working pipeliners essential to transforming ideas to practical field operations.

REFERENCES [1] Pipeline Transportation for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids, ASME B31.4-2009, [2] Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, ASME B31.4-2010 [3] Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, CAN/CSA Z662-11 [4] CAN/CSA Z662-11, Clause 8.1.8 (new) [5] Cosham A, Eibner RJ, Owen R, Spiekhout J, A Historical Review of Pre-Commissioning Hydrotest Failures, International Pipeline Conference 2006, paper IPC2006-10333, ASME [6] A Protocol for the Determination of Total Cell Concentration of Natural Microbial Communities in Drinking water with FCM, Techneau Deliverable 3.3.7, June 2007 [7] Sogin ML, Morrison, HG, Huber JA, Welsch DM, Huse SM, Neal PR, Arrieta JM, Herndl GJ, Microbial Diversity in the Deep Sea and the Underexplored Rare Biosphere, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103 (32): 12115-12120, 2006 [8] Whitman WB, Coleman DC, Wiebe WJ, Prokaryotes: The Unseen Majority, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 95(12):6578-83, 1998 [9] Fukuhara R, Murakami M, Utilizing Deep Seawater from the Gulf of Aqaba for Desalination at the Dead Sea, Watermark The Newsletter of the Middle East Desalination Research Center, Issue 20, June 2003, http://www.medrc.org/watermark/watermark20/article4.html [10] Enbridge Pipeline historical experience (1950-1999) [11] Darwin A, Annadorai K, Heidersbach K, Prevention of Corrosion in Carbon Steel Pipelines Containing Hydrotest Water An Overview, CORROSION 2010, Paper #10401, NACE International, Houston, TX 2010 [12] Borenstein SW, Lindsay PB, Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion Failure Analysis of 304L Stainless Steel Piping System Left Stagnant After Hydrotesting with City Water, CORROSION 2002, Paper #02446, NACE International, Houston TX 2002 [13] Stein AA, MIC in the Power Industry In: Kobrin G (ed) A Practical Manual on Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion. Houston, TX: NACE International, pp. 21-24 [14] Lutey RW, Treatment for the Mitigation of MIC In: Stoeker J (ed) A Practical Manual on Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion. Houston, TX: NACE International, pp. 9.1-9.30. [15] Little B, Lee JS, Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion, Revie WR (ed), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007 [16] Kobrin G, Corrosion by Microbiological Organisms in Natural Waters, Houston, TX: NACE International, Materials Performance, 15(7) pp38-43. [17] Darwin A, Annadorai K, Heidersbach K, Prevention of Corrosion in Carbon Steel Pipelines Containing Hydrotest Water An Overview, CORROSION 2010, Paper #10401, NACE International, Houston, TX 2010

Copyright 2012 by ASME

[18] Enbridge typical hydrotest segments are typically 4060km in length. [19] Bennett AK, Wong EC, The Importance of PrePlanning for Large Hydrostatic Test Programs, International Pipeline Conference, Paper 2010-31430, ASME [20] Penkala JE, Fichter J, and Ramachandran S, Protection Against Microbiological Influenced Corrosion By Effective Treatment and Monitoring During Hydrotest Shut In. Houston, TX: NACE International. Corrosion 2010, paper # 10404, 2010. [21](www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/pwmis/techdesc/offsit e/index.html) indicated water disposal cost. Typical cost range in AB is: $8.00-$44.00/m3 for non-oiled wastewater. [22] Zhou J, Murray A, Abes J, Implementation of Alternative Integrity Validation on a Large Diameter Pipeline Construction Project, Proceedings of IPC2008, paper IPC2008-64479, ASME [23] Korbrin G, Lamb S, Tuthiss AH, Avery RE, Selby KA, Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion of Stainless Steels by Water used for Cooling and Hydrostatic Testing, Proceedings of the 58th International Water Conference, paper IWC-97-53, pages 504-516, Engineers Society of Western Pennsylvania, Pittsberg, PA. [24] Stott J, Rapid Pitting of Type 304 Stainless Steel Pipework, from: Handbook of Case Histories in Failure Analysis, Volume 1, Esakul KA (ed.), ASM International, 1992. [25] Powell DE, Melancon B, Winters RH, Guidelines when Conducting Hydrostatic Pressure Tests and Management of Extended Dwell Times through Dry/Wet Lay-ups, Houston, TX: NACE International. Corrosion 2011, paper 11082, 2011.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

ANNEX A SCHEMATIC OF POST HYDROTEST RINSE

The volume of glycol based inhibitor/water blend can be estimated using the following formula:

V (l ) 10 * L(km) * D(in)
Where: V is the required volume of chemical blend in litres L is the length of segment being treated in kilometers D is the diameter of the pipe in inches This is a practical volume for large diameter pipelines (0.508m diameter or larger) for distances of up to 60km, intended to produce 25% residual fluid at the receiving barrel. Important notes: The pipeline should be dewatered and swabbed as per normal to achieve near dry conditions (no water accumulations) before applying post-hydrotest treatment A compressor may be required at the receiving end to prepack the line with air pressure for additional speed control, depending on the configuration of the sending barrel It is essential that the discharge pipe between the receiving barrel and the receiving tank be tied down to restrain movement The receiving tank must contain adequate venting Defoaming agents compatible with the inhibitor should be added to the receiving tank prior to treatment, or added to the chemical blend if compatible.

Copyright 2012 by ASME